Posted on 01/04/2007 6:18:01 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
President George W Bush is to change his military operations chief for Iraq and Afghanistan, US media reports say. Adm William Fallon will replace Gen John Abizaid as head of US Central Command and there will be a new ground commander in Iraq, ABC News reported.
It also said that US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is to replace John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN. The reports come days before Mr Bush unveils a new strategy for Iraq that could include thousands more US troops. The Pentagon has declined to comment on the reports. New troops Adm Fallon is the top military commander in the Pacific. If confirmed, the move would put an admiral in charge of two land wars. ABC said Lt Gen David Petraeus was expected to replace Gen George Casey as the leading ground commander in Iraq. In a teleconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki on Thursday Mr Bush agreed there should be "sufficient" security forces in Baghdad, the White House said.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says there could be perhaps as many as 18,000 extra troops, a policy that is likely to bring gasps of disbelief from many of the president's supporters. The Democrats, newly installed in power in both houses of Congress, will not be supportive, our correspondent says. Mr Bush's new approach is expected to be laid out in a speech as early as the middle of next week. A senior White House official said Mr Bush might make the official announcement on Mr Khalilzad as early as Friday. Mr Khalilzad would have to be confirmed by the Senate, but analysts say he has maintained good relations with the Democrats. Reports say Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Pakistan, may replace Mr Khalilzad in Baghdad. John Negroponte is set to move from director of national intelligence to deputy secretary of state. Retired vice admiral and intelligence official Michael McConnell is expected to replace Mr Negroponte.
|
BBC: Iranians 'up to no good' in Iraq ~ were on a covert mission to influence Iraq's government
Nothing like a little outside help for a supposed insurgency.
I was watching Brit Hume's show a couple of hours ago and he or one of his panel reported that a major shakeup in the command structure in Iraq would be announced shortly.
Casey is gone, replaced by general Petraues (sp?).
admiral fallon to replace abizaid.
Thank you. I think I will buy the book. :)
Yes, its about that time.
Very well said. You are absolutely right. I just hope that the dems and MSM will one day pay for their actions. Unfortunately, we are all in the same boat and the libs don't seem to realize that. Hate must really overcome common sense and basic survival instincts. Secular Humanism is EVIL
Training Iraqi forces is going well as can be expected, and they are taking the lead in many raids and operations now. That is a vast improvement in their capabilities from a year ago when they were just getting their feet wet.
We've had 3000 die in 3 years, each and every one a precious life. And a full 20% of those deaths are non-combat related. The jihadis worldwide - Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Saudis - you name it - have declared Iraq to be the main front in the "the war against the great satan". It is NOT just quelling an Iraq insurgency, it is fighting jihadis of all stripes. And we are winning. Here's a report from Falluja from a Marine just returned. Tell me that is not an improvement over Falluja of the past.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1762478/posts
In Iraq the civil strife is fueled by oil. Saudi Oil on one side, Iranian on the other.
As is said in the summer camp industry "It's butt kicking time at Mt. Didy".
;-)
These two general officers sound like excelllent choices.
Is this a good move?
I wonder if this troop surge isn't a stalking horse.
Thank you craven Americans.
They were retiring any way so I think the BBC was playing with the facts in the usual mode of Headline writers everywhere!!!
The economy is improving, kids are going to school, more oil is flowing, ... Yes, you're right, these things aren't being reported. That said, so what? While we "stay the course" Iran is hot on building a nuclear arsenal. After four years of sitting in Iraq, the voting public is angry and isn't going to stand for any further military action.
That's a shame because Iran is run by a wacko who believes the hidden Imam can be hastened through massive destruction. Suppose the president now says we need to invade Iran to wipe out their weapons of mass destruction. Anyone guess what the reaction will be?
So Iran gets a lucky pass because we decided "to stay the course."
"..I hardly think many representatives and senators really believe we can just leave Iraq without extremly dire ramifications."
Those congressmen and women who came to power were voted in by the anti-war crowd. They will have to fess up or lose their seats next election. I think we're going to pull out - perhaps not tomorrow, but sooner than the Iraqis would like.
I still remember how TV showed our victorious tanks rumbling on to Baghdad. As someone who spent a quarter of a century living and working among Muslims in the oil industry I knew then that we were sticking our private part into a hornet's nest. You ain't seen nothing yet.
I hope by God that I am 180 degrees wrong.
No Iran gets pounded because we have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do you think they are so intent in seeing both fail. Iraq stands up a democracy, the ME collpses, including the mullahs. They are having internal problems galore right now. Bush would be elected over Ahmadinajad.
In other words, us retreating from Afghanistan or Iraq is exactly what the mullahs want. The voting public will stand for an bombing Iran if it can be demonstrated that it is necessary. I'm already convinced it will be necessary, and I vote. So do you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.